Mr. C. C. Babington on British Plants. 365 



of this description will be found in Richter's useful 'Codex Botan. 

 Linnseanus' (n. 6437). Linnaeus there expresses his belief 

 that if its radiant florets had not been toothed, it would have 

 agreed with the plant of Ray's ' Synopsis/ and as that is now 

 decided to be a character of very little value, we may consider 

 his opinion as favourable to the identity of the plants. It is re- 

 markable, that in the ' Sp. PL' ed. 3. he has Chrysanthemum in- 

 odorum (the M. inodora of Fl. Suec. ed. 2), and places under it 

 "y8. Chamcenwlum maritimum, It. w. goth. 148," but also de- 

 scribes M. maritima as the plant of Ray's ' Synopsis,' and again 

 makes the same reference to the * Iter west-gothicum.' As these 

 references necessarily belong to the same plant, it is manifest 

 that an error has occuiTed which has naturally caused much of 

 the doubt expressed by succeeding botanists ; those who only 

 knew the maritime form of M. inodora thinking that the refer- 

 ence was correctly placed under C. inodorum, and consequently 

 M. maritima was an accidental repetition. As very few botanists 

 appear to have been acquainted with the Dillenian plant, or that 

 found at Billingen in Sweden by Linnaeus, it has happened that 

 the true M. maritima has nearly disappeared from books. Even 

 those modern authors who separate the M. maritima from the 

 M. inodora have usually described the maritime form of the latter 

 under the former name. To Fries the credit is due of first, in 

 modem times, directing attention to this fact, and making us 

 acquainted with the true M. maritima. His valuable remarks 

 upon the plants will be found in his * Mantissa tertia' (pp. 115- 

 117) and ' Summa Veg. Scand.' (p. 186). In the latter work 

 he observes, that M. Gay of Paris thinks that two species are in- 

 cluded under the name of M. maritima in Sweden. If, as is most 

 probable, the two plants are the M. inodora ^. salina and the 

 true M. maritima, there seems no diflficulty in acceding to M. 

 Gay's views, although not allowing that the former of these 

 plants is separable specifically from M. inodora. It is proper to 

 remark, that Wallroth appears to have known that the Matri- 

 caria of saline districts was not necessarily the maritime plant 

 of Dillenius, for in his ' Schedulse Criticse ' (p. 485) he points 

 out difierences between his Pyrethrum inodorum /S. salinum and 

 the P. maritimum of Smith. 



The following are as good specific characters as I have suc- 

 ceeded in drawing up for the plants. Taken as a whole I think 

 that they may be so distinguished, but it is to be feared that na 

 one part alone can be implicitly depended upon : — i[iQL 



(^, M. inodora (Linn.) ; st. erect, leaves sessile pinnate, leaflets with 

 many usually altera ate capillary pointed segments, basal leaflets 

 crowded clasping the stem not separated from the others, heads 



